W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2013

RE: rdfa11.jsonld (was Re: Open Annotation / Default Context Location?)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:08:58 +0100
To: "'Robert Sanderson'" <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01d701ce15cd$eab236b0$c016a410$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:57 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

> May I ask why it would be best practice for RDFa to have their own
> context separately, yet ontologies to have them merged?
>
> Surely it should be in http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa when content
> negotiated for JSON-LD?

RDFa's namespace (vocabulary) != RDFa's initial context

The RDFa initial context contains prefixes for multiple vocabularies plus a
number of terms whereas RDF's vocabulary contains definitions like
rdfa:PrefixOrTermMapping etc. These are two different things and should be
kept separate as they will evolve separately. It would make no sense to
define, e.g., skosxl or void prefixes in RDFa's namespace.

Hope this clears things up


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 16:09:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:39 GMT